I don't understand why historical has a negative connotation. If a player wants historical plausibility what that means simply is that the player wants the historical armies with the historical equipment with the historical problems and to play out the "what ifs". It does not mean to replay history.

The Soviet player does this from turn one. He runs. He wants the historical Soviet army and to play the "what ifs".

In like manner, the Axis player will not replicate the many mistakes made and will play out the "what ifs".

Historical plausibility is what is wanted or you might as well pass out ray guns.

I know there is some strange debate about alternate histories where the Axis loses by 1945 period. No matter 1945 is it.

Germany does lose the war. In the end it cannot fight a two front war and I am glad it lost it and it would have been better if it had been beaten sooner than 1945. Even Churchill understood that the Axis were making serious mistakes that were speeding up the end of the war in our favor. Churchill referred to Hitler as the corporal who was leading the German General Staff.

Again I will say, a historical representation of the Eastern Front will stand on its own with no need for manipulation.

Excellent post. Simple, straightforward and true. Captures precisely what I have been seeking in wargames since spending most of the summer of '76 in a friend's basement playing and replaying Avalon Hill's "Third Reich" !

RCH Nice post, but it neatly sidesteps the basic question of historical determinacy. In other words, most people would agree that in most wars, results sometimes hinge on a knife edge and some insignificant detail has turned the tide of battle. So although almost everyone would agree that historical accuracy meaning the same equipment and circumstances as you say is desirable; some including me would disagree that the result was always foreordained. For example, few would argue that had Eisenhower guessed wrong and the D-day invasion and the unpredictable weather not favored the invasion, D-day could have been a huge disaster. Other factors like Hitler refusing to release the Panzers for 3 days ensured that the US invasion fronts would not face any Panzer divisions for the first week (despite Hollywood movies to the contrary), thus greatly favoring the invasion. What would have been the result of Midway and some other battles had not the Allies broken both the German and Japanese codes or had the US Carriers been in Pearl Harbor as the Japanese expected when they attacked?

Had Hitler allowed 6th Army to break out of Stalingrad earlier, it is fairly certain that they could have done so, so I would argue that any game that absolutely prevents 6th Army from breaking out when the German Army is controlled by a human player may suffer from historical "Political correctness". I am not arguing about this game with that example, because I don't know if that situation actually occurs in the game. But I hope that you understand my point.

My preference is for games that allow some amount of "what-if" conditions: what if Hitler had allowed the early release of the Panzers? What if Patton had been replaced by an inferior General who had not planned the Bulge relief in advance and had taken two weeks to reach Bastogne?

The biggest challange is that people like to try and learn from the mistakes that both sides made during the conflict. In a game where you are free from the interfering of Hitler/Stalin you will not see the same major mistakes as history has recorded. You wont get this unless you have 2 players who agree to follow the histroical orders that were forced on the armed forces by their masters.

For the germans - the russians should be limited to histroical OOB, they should fight from forward positions during 1941, they should attack in late 1942 rather than just turtle up until 1943 for the Russians - the germans should not take cities they didn't/couldn't take, the germans should not pull part of their force out of Russia during the blizzard, they should attack in a kursk like situation and waste their armoured formations.

Sorry but even with the best of intentions from Gary/2by3/matrix games the game would not be anywhere near as fun as it is if the entire 1941 GC was fought in this way, they have produced some really good scenario's in the expansion pack all of which put you in a histroical position at various stages of the war.

This is as close to a histroical game as has been produced, you cannot play 4 years of war and expect things to follow histroy as close as some people want without scripting 99% of the turns.

The victory conditions should be such (and I believe they are such) that even with Germany losing the war, the German player can still win the game.

There is some modest improvement in the victory conditions being implemented in the next patch but it still has a long ways to go IMHO. I just added No Retreat! from Victory Point Games to my collection and was reviewing it this weekend. I found the Designers Notes consistent with most all other Russian Front games I've played over the years regarding Sudden Death victory conditions and why most games have them:

quote:

The Sudden Death victory condition is very intriguing and keeps player paying attention to the current Victory Point (VP) score. Here is how it works: every three Game Turns [6 months], this victory condition is checked against a sum of VPs that the Initiative Player (the Axis during the first half of the game, the Soviets during the latter half; and both sides on Game Turn 11) has. If the Initiative player has sufficient VPs at that moment, the game is over and that player wins outright.

A sufficient sum of VPs are not that easy to get, but not impossibly hard to obtain either. This fact will stop your opponent from becoming complacent (i.e., from “knowing” in advance what the historical outcome of the war was; e.g., “Bah, I can just withdraw and lose Kiev without a fight! The Axis never got farther than Stalingrad anyway and I’ll get tons of new units in 1944.”). Also, because only the side with the Initiative can win by Sudden Death, neither side can afford do loose too much ground too quickly, even if this is tactically a good idea on the map, hence the game title: No Retreat!

Take away this very fundamental feature from any Russian Front game like WITE and you get what you get.

RCH Nice post, but it neatly sidesteps the basic question of historical determinacy. In other words, most people would agree that in most wars, results sometimes hinge on a knife edge and some insignificant detail has turned the tide of battle.

I think that could sometimes be said about battles in the age of musket and sabre, but not as much in the 20th century. Once armies reached millions strong, it was less and less likely that a single moment or tactical event would change the course of a war.

quote:

So although almost everyone would agree that historical accuracy meaning the same equipment and circumstances as you say is desirable; some including me would disagree that the result was always foreordained.

Case by case, for me. To my mind, Germany had probably lost the second world war on 23.06.1941. It just took four years to prove it. She had certainly lost it by November 1941.

quote:

For example, few would argue that had Eisenhower guessed wrong and the D-day invasion and the unpredictable weather not favored the invasion, D-day could have been a huge disaster.

I would argue the point. The German's only chance perhaps lay in the scenario where the Allies crossed at Pas de Calais. Given the strength of the German defences, that was always unlikely. Once they were ashore, it was just a question of time. Given how much coastline they had to choose from, given absolute air supremacy, given they had plenty of 15 inch guns that would give any counterattacking Panzer Commander a bad day, it's hard to see the Allies being stopped given the quality of their planning. I can just about see Omaha failing if 12th SS Panzer had been deployed in Normandy and a company or two of Pzgr and a few stugs had made it to the beach before the Americans got up the bluffs, but that aside the ability of the allies to interdict German reinforcements to any bridgehead area made success pretty likely.

quote:

Other factors like Hitler refusing to release the Panzers for 3 days ensured that the US invasion fronts would not face any Panzer divisions for the first week (despite Hollywood movies to the contrary), thus greatly favoring the invasion.

Well, US fronts rarely faced Panzers until Mortain anyway. By the end of the first week, 3 Panzer Divisions, a Pzgr Division and a Tiger battalion had reached Normandy. Of the other Units that would eventually make it, 9th and 10th SS were in Russia, SSLAH was not comabat ready having incorporated huge numbers of replacements recently, SSDR and 116th were hamstrung by lack of motor vehicles and 9th Panzer was not combat ready either.

Given how difficult it was to shift large motorised units along the French road and rail network in Northern france, i don't think they did too badly. They also felt this may have been a diversion. Given Dragoon, such a suspiscion is understandable.

quote:

What would have been the result of Midway and some other battles had not the Allies broken both the German and Japanese codes or had the US Carriers been in Pearl Harbor as the Japanese expected when they attacked?

I don't know much about the PTO, but my understanding was the Japanese were actually out there hoping the American flattops would turn up. Had the Americans lost a couple of carriers in 1941, I'd have put the effect at lengthening the war by maybe 6 months to a year. Once the Americans started pumping out the Hellcat and the essex class, the game was up for Japan.

quote:

Had Hitler allowed 6th Army to break out of Stalingrad earlier, it is fairly certain that they could have done so, so I would argue that any game that absolutely prevents 6th Army from breaking out when the German Army is controlled by a human player may suffer from historical "Political correctness".

I disagree. 6th Army was home to a collection of shattered infantry units. In some divisions the casualties amongst the combat arms were horrendous. Several weeks before encirclement, the Germans had sent their horses out of the city as they weren't required and could be better fed and cared for further back. When he was surrounded, therefore, Paulus lacked the muscle to move anywhere fast, and certainly wouldn't have been able to move the bulk of his artillery or wounded.

Moving beat up infantry formations into the open in poor weather with Russian mobile formations milling about was a big ask. Throw in the fact that he saved Germany from defeat in the south in 1942 by tieing down Russian troops that could have been sealing off the Caucasus forces, and breakout was a pipedream IMHO.

quote:

My preference is for games that allow some amount of "what-if" conditions: what if Hitler had allowed the early release of the Panzers?

No real difference. Releasing them and actually geting them to Normandy in a combat ready state are two completely different things.

quote:

What if Patton had been replaced by an inferior General who had not planned the Bulge relief in advance and had taken two weeks to reach Bastogne?

The Germans had bypassed the town and were stopped short of the Meuse by other forces. Whilst welcome to the brave defenders of Bastogne (except for the 101st who felt they didn't need him by all accounts) the Germans didn't fail because of Patton. They failed because they set themselves an impossible task with forces incapable of achieving it in the weather, geographical and operational conditions that were prevalent.

All that said, my respect for the Avatar. Lee Marvin is one mean looking warrior.

I don't understand why historical has a negative connotation. If a player wants historical plausibility what that means simply is that the player wants the historical armies with the historical equipment with the historical problems and to play out the "what ifs". It does not mean to replay history.

The Soviet player does this from turn one. He runs. He wants the historical Soviet army and to play the "what ifs".

In like manner, the Axis player will not replicate the many mistakes made and will play out the "what ifs".

Historical plausibility is what is wanted or you might as well pass out ray guns.

I know there is some strange debate about alternate histories where the Axis loses by 1945 period. No matter 1945 is it.

Germany does lose the war. In the end it cannot fight a two front war and I am glad it lost it and it would have been better if it had been beaten sooner than 1945. Even Churchill understood that the Axis were making serious mistakes that were speeding up the end of the war in our favor. Churchill referred to Hitler as the corporal who was leading the German General Staff.

Again I will say, a historical representation of the Eastern Front will stand on its own with no need for manipulation.

Some players want to basically do whatever they want or can get away with and that is their game, and many have already decimated the game with gambits and exploits. Some other players want a higher degree of historical plausibility where the player has additional constraints and randomness that the historical commanders had to contend with.

I think one could say the Axis came fairly close to knocking out the Soviets in 1941 and did not do so bad in 1942 and had one last chance in 1943. If things had gone better in North Africa, the Axis got a higher degree of Finnish and/or even some Japanese participation, or a big Japanese win at Midway, not declared war on the U.S.A to buy a bit more time, and a few other things...it might have worked out better for them until the atomic bomb was available.

No. I want the rule set to superbly reflect the combat interaction of units and the mechanics of supply. I want to use hindsight and expertise to win a decisive victory for either side. Leave the strategy to me - history can take a hike.

No. I want the rule set to superbly reflect the combat interaction of units and the mechanics of supply. I want to use hindsight and expertise to win a decisive victory for either side. Leave the strategy to me - history can take a hike.

No. I want the rule set to superbly reflect the combat interaction of units and the mechanics of supply. I want to use hindsight and expertise to win a decisive victory for either side. Leave the strategy to me - history can take a hike.

Fine, let's throw history out the window. First thing to go are those leader ratings which after all are historically based. Let's have all leaders on both sides start as 4s for all ratings and let your "strategy" determine whose good and who isn't. Next thing to go are those morale and experience ratings which are also historically based. Everybody starts out as a 50 and let your "strategy" determine how much their quality improves. Oh and there's that first turn surprise rule, got to get rid of that also because it is historically based. Hmm, seems what you end up with is two armies of equal quality except one army is a lot bigger than the other one and it begins on the defensive. Sounds like fun.

No. I want the rule set to superbly reflect the combat interaction of units and the mechanics of supply. I want to use hindsight and expertise to win a decisive victory for either side. Leave the strategy to me - history can take a hike.

Fine, let's throw history out the window. First thing to go are those leader ratings which after all are historically based. Let's have all leaders on both sides start as 4s for all ratings and let your "strategy" determine whose good and who isn't. Next thing to go are those morale and experience ratings which are also historically based. Everybody starts out as a 50 and let your "strategy" determine how much their quality improves. Oh and there's that first turn surprise rule, got to get rid of that also because it is historically based. Hmm, seems what you end up with is two armies of equal quality except one army is a lot bigger than the other one and it begins on the defensive. Sounds like fun.

Iron Duke, +1, all your points come from good research and using decent logic. There would be some more to add, but what you said stands on it's own......

As far a historical goes, I believe this will be about as close as we come in a game. We are given the units that start, a really good reinforcement/ withdrawal schedule, and everything else in between is up to us. Is it perfect? No. There will be some more tightening up here, but operationally, it's as close as I have seen. Operational tempo is too high, but I prefer that to too low (WWI....AAAHHHHHH!).

So...here is what I am thinking for those that want full control (and I like this idea), after they do War in the West, et al., they can do the whole European Theatre beginning on September 1, 1939. It is set up with historical troops, and reinforcements for the next month. After that, GG, Joel, and the gang can figure out production points and manpower, and you get to build whatever you want to your heart's content. Don't be disappointed if you can't have 40 panzer divisions for the invasion of France! I think that would be the best solution and Europe is yours to master.

I think Europe and The Pacific should be kept separate. One turn on a world scale would be too much time for my tastes (beside, War is the Pacific is close to being perfect). Leave WitE alone, it's great, give me all of Europe to be a megalomaniac!

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.

The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

History? If? You don't need much to contradict yourself, do you?

History is, Manstein was not in charge of Eastern Front.

In Hitler's Führer state it would have been not very probable, to say the least, that Hitler would have give away command of "his own" front, the very peak of his "Kampf". Plus, the fanatical Austrian Corporal detested more and more 1. Manstein's "operieren" (maneuvre warfare), 2. high staff attitude, 3. Prussian habitus.

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.

The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

I'd be delighted with a more historical game, one without the Lvov opening, a tougher Leningrad, more stringent logistics, etc. Axis players have little cause for complaint with the present state of the game, it seems to me. Nor would they necessarily be happier if it were more historical.

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.

Not that i necesarrily disagree, cuz i dont. BUT do those that complain of this and its been so in many threads really want all that entails or would/do they have selective memory and there for rules to as such when it really comes down too it.

July 20 1941 In the Centre, Bock orders Guderian to close the ring at Smolensk before any further advance to the East. 12/08/1941 Hitler issues Directive No.34 which temporarily abandons Moscow as an objective in favour of the Ukraine.

So since we want historical play we need to have germans stop any advance after they take Smolensk. Sorry Bock says so. Then it takes 4 turns to Liquidate the pocket: Smolensk pocket. 15/07/1941 Army Group Centre encircles Smolensk, along with a large body of Russians to the west of the City. 28/07/1941 German troops begin to eliminate the Russian forces trapped in the pocket to the west of Smolensk. 01/08/1941 Army Group Centre continues its liquidation of the Smolensk pocket. Soviet troops put up fierce resistance near Orsha and Vitebsk west of Smolensk. 05/08/1941 German troops capture Smolensk and take 310,000 Red Army prisoners as the remnants of 16th and 20th Armies surrender. How long would it take in game now?

After that we need to have an order that makes the germans turn S for a number of turns driving to Kiev. Sorry, Hitler says so.

I've read it over and over again. The russians can do any thing they want the germans are tied into history and have no options, riiiight. Do u really want historical play or is that the "brilliant" germans should have no strings attached where as there should be on russian side. We all know the russians where all a bunch of bafoons and that germans never made any strategical/operational mistakes so ofc german players shouldnt be "tied to history". Which they in fact arent since there no such rules in the game.

Sorry to say this, but is my and i repeat my opinion there is a huge double standart when it comes to what many ppl think is historical. The quote below says it all. Eh, what if Stalin hadnt been in command for russian side. U apparently for german side want the fact to be that it could be Manstein at command why not make the same allowance for russian side!!!!!!!!!

Why cant i as a russian player make unlimted corps in 41? Why cant i as a russian player make 44 OOB mech corps when i want Why do making 1 inf corps in 42 cost me 1/3 of a turns AP? Why are the russian NM moral limited to 45 in 42? And so on and so on and on. Just like on the german side.

*Whom is it that is affraid of history?

quote:

The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

Problem is that, that is an assumption. Sure we can theorize about what would have happend with Manstein in command and if he was better as a strategist, but since it never happened we cant know for sure. In in the end it cant be more than theorizing, and even with Manstain had been in command, who says the german logistical situasion could have improved? Could Manstein have made the alrdy more than excellent tactical abilties of the german troops even better? Im not saying things wouldnt have been different. His insistance on try to get Hitler to use elastic defence says alot, but again the exactly same is true for the russian side in that case. Who says they cant "improve" on history.

I've read every single AAR in the last 6 pages of the AAR forum. in the games that has progress that far. In 2 games(Terje and TDV vs pelton), yes 2 games do the germans do worse than history in '41. In 1 its even debatle so, cuz they do better in some areas. In the rest they do better too much better. If u take that as any empherical evidence. What does that says about the current state of the german abilties and their supposedly being "tied down to history" comparily speaking at leased as far as '41 goes.

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.

The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

I'd be delighted with a more historical game, one without the Lvov opening, a tougher Leningrad, more stringent logistics, etc. Axis players have little cause for complaint with the present state of the game, it seems to me. Nor would they necessarily be happier if it were more historical.

I would be too.

They wouldn't be happy with a more historical game. Some are already unhappy with the fact that they don't get to build anything. (Which was out of OKH's hands.) Don't like the TOE changes. (Again, historical.)

Seen alot of proposals to make the Russian side play just like they did in reality. (Why don't they stand and fight so we Axis players recreate those historical pockets.) But not a single Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad/Moscow. Which is not historical.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 3/23/2012 6:54:51 PM >

_____________________________

Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution!

Domino's is a good name for a pizza place but a bad name for a construction company.

When you argue the the above Soviet positions you are just backing up my own statement. How come the Soviet forces are as weak as they are in 1941? Why is there a Lvov pocket? I know from history that Leningrad nor Moscow fell in 1941. Historically, if the drive on Moscow would have been continued it would have fallen as there were very few troops to stop them(not enough anyways). If that was the case then the advance in the south wouldn't have been as far. In this game the Axis player gets it all. How is that historical?

The Axis is too strong in 1941 and the Soviets are too strong in 1944. Two wrongs don't make a right. This game lacks a struggle between the opposing sides. It is all about supermen. The Axis wears the cape in 1941 and the Soviets get the cape sometime in 1943.

It is a bulldozer one way and then a bulldozer the other way. I would prefer seeing fluid battles and back and forth struggles. That is the way I imagine the game would flow with each player keeping themselves from making the historical mistakes.

I don't see a Soviet steamroller unless many Axis mistakes are made. I don't see a Axis victory after 1942. I think the Axis should have a way of knocking the Soviets out of the war in 1941 or 1942. 1943 and 1944 should be back and forth.

When you argue the the above Soviet positions you are just backing up my own statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx I'd be delighted with a more historical game

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian I would be too

quote:

ORIGINAL: My self Not that i necesarrily disagree, cuz i dont

Exactly, I dont see any "Russians" opposing more historical play. Problem is u follow up with

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

Where u directly and also implies at leased the 3 of us read it like that. Underlining that i cant speak for Aurelian nor Flaviusx, but my assumption from there posts are and they are in agreement, but feel free too correct me. That there is more to ur position other than there is a problem with the game historically speaking. U say "we" are afraid of history, i say we arent. Just read 3 above responces. I think we would love that Moscow and Lenningrad didnt fall every other game. U further say we refuse to acknowledge that if Manstein was in charge that things would be different. Implying that some how the germans are shortchanged. At leased u dont follow up with the same exact thing could be said of russian side if a similar change in command is done.

If u read the forums u would IMHO see a fairly frequently as of the last few months voiced opinion on how this game is totally biased against the germans. I think a number of ppl are really tired of this cuz there seem to be no acknowledgement from a number of this voiced opioniers(made up word?) to see what is really going on in the game. That there are many limits on the soviet side and that AARs clearly show the german side in '41 and frequently in '42 doing much better than historical and this is ignored.

I think if u hadnt made the 2nd statement that the responce u would have recieved would have been much different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH How come the Soviet forces are as weak as they are in 1941? Why is there a Lvov pocket? I know from history that Leningrad nor Moscow fell in 1941.

Agree.

quote:

Historically, if the drive on Moscow would have been continued it would have fallen as there were very few troops to stop them(not enough anyways). If that was the case then the advance in the south wouldn't have been as far. In this game the Axis player gets it all. How is that historical?

Ok, not that i necesarry disagree with u, but would u make the acknowledgement that in order to continue the advance towards Moscow earlier germans in fact stray from history? Again not that, that necesarily is a problem. Its a game, but if the germans are allowed to stray from history why shouldnt the same be true for the russian side. Moving troops to stop such an attempt and there for it might not have succeded any way.

This is a typical problem to me with what ifs in wargames. If side A only had done B, C would have happened. It totally ignores that the fact that life nor war isnt static. If side A had done B, why assume that side X would have done the same as they did in history and not tried to counter move B. Possibly nolifying that C would have happened, by their own counter moves.

quote:

The Axis is too strong in 1941 and the Soviets are too strong in 1944. Two wrongs don't make a right. This game lacks a struggle between the opposing sides. It is all about supermen. The Axis wears the cape in 1941 and the Soviets get the cape sometime in 1943.

I agree in 2 wrongs dont make a right and its all about supermen. As to when or if the russians get it im not so sure as u are. We havent seen that many 1.05+ games get that far yet and i think as ppl start to learn from AARs from better ppl that a few things might suprise ppl in how later war balance is. Alot ofc depence in diffence of player quality, how '41 and 42 goes and so on, so its very hard to generalize.

Ill make a bold statement. I think if we would see, but we wont, as a patch with alt scn victory conditions is comming and ppl will start to play that. That we would see alot less russian minor victories. Reason for that u can start to see in Peltons later AARs and Q-balls too. It will take some time to perfect and trinkle down to lesser players. We will see a reverse of the 1.04 fort situasion. If u have any skillz as a german player u by early to mid '42 u dont need APs to optimze ur C&C as u can have done it by then. U will need very few APs to change occational leaders but else its basicly free APs once u assume the defence. This means u only got 2 thing to use APs for. HQ build up pushing russians futher bakc and to make West wall after west wall. Use APs to attach Constr units or if u even smarter move OKH up in range an lock it with lots of Constr units. This will mean the russian will hafta fight its way through Fort 4 lines after fort 4 lines. That the germans can fall back into as is needed. This will stall offensives immensly. u will rarely see russians "run" wild. Throw in German pz stacks still being supermen on exposed russian position as they advance, and then withdraw the pz units behind the fort 4 lines. Im not saying every german player will be able too it does require skill but as its shown in AARs over time the skill will spead.

quote:

It is a bulldozer one way and then a bulldozer the other way. I would prefer seeing fluid battles and back and forth struggles. That is the way I imagine the game would flow with each player keeping themselves from making the historical mistakes.

I don't see a Soviet steamroller unless many Axis mistakes are made. I don't see a Axis victory after 1942. I think the Axis should have a way of knocking the Soviets out of the war in 1941 or 1942. 1943 and 1944 should be back and forth.

Dont disagree if a german victory means an artifically constructed victory as in certain conditions, understanding that it wouldnt mean a victory in real life. As too fluincy. Problem is it will "never" happen. Players game the system, thats how players are. Any one(if a player) on defence will try and make the game non fluid, in order to win. I dont see the combat engine as of now achieve what u want and what ever changes are made, ppl will game. Periode. Also one has to understand that the eastern front wasnt per say fluid. AGS was yeah, but AGC and AGN was from early '42 until mid '44 very much static. Any losses of hexes in offensives can be meassure in fairly few hexes. Even Operation Mars didnt achieve that much in terms of territory, other than straitning out the Rzhev salient. I'd stipulate that ppl tend to foucs on AGS pre mid 44 and say that is how the eastern front was. Cuz that is where the "fun" is. Problem is in reality it was only "1/2" of the front. Rest was static warfare in large, this is history. Not to say there wasnt fluiency cuz there obviously was, but it usually came a price not depicted in game as of now.

I'd be delighted with a more historical game, one without the Lvov opening, a tougher Leningrad, more stringent logistics, etc. Axis players have little cause for complaint with the present state of the game, it seems to me. Nor would they necessarily be happier if it were more historical.

And a less brutal blizzard against the Germans? Then I'm on board. The blizzard is not historical either. The Soviet counter-offensive of 41 did 600k of casualties for the entire offensive. The germans can lose 500k in the first week of the blizzard alone and that's with the Soviets doing nothing! The blizzard is overblown. I would like to see the 1/3 of CV against soviet shock troops, not their entire army.

Regimental Breakdown should cost Admin Points. This is one small step against Lvov and other regiment gambits. It won't fix them but Regimental Breakdown is currently exploited. It is a commander's decision and action as much as any other and should cost AP, and is a doable fix.

Regimental Breakdown should cost Admin Points. This is one small step against Lvov and other regiment gambits. It won't fix them but Regimental Breakdown is currently exploited. It is a commander's decision and action as much as any other and should cost AP, and is a doable fix.

That wouldn't be my fix. The real problem is the surprise turn mechanics are borked and need a do over.

Quick and dirty fix: give Soviet units full movement on the first turn. Then they'd probably break the pocket every time. But even that is a band aid.